Fertilizers for lawns and other purposes frequently consist of an inorganic mixture of salts that provide nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Fertilizers for different purposes may be liquids or solids, and contain a wide range of nitrogen:phosphorus:potassium (“N:P:K”) as well as other plant nutrients depending on the purpose for which the products are intended. Typically, fertilizer products are primarily composted of salts of inorganic compounds, and so do not qualify for organic status.
Many traditional fertilizer products function very well. However, there is increasing concern, because such fertilizers pollute water due to their release of high levels of nitrates into ground water. One fertilizer product has a formulation of 32:2:8 (% N:P2O:K2O5). Of that 32%, the analysis on the packaging indicates that 3.8% is ammonium compounds, 53% is urea, 39% is water soluble N, and 3.8% other N. The nitrate and urea are immediately available for leaching into ground water if these compounds are not taken up by plants. Unfortunately, plants typically use only about 33% of the total nitrogen fertilizer applied (Arnall et al., “Relationship Between Nitrogen Use Efficiency and Response Index in Winter Wheat,” J. Plant Nutr. 32:502-515 (2009)), while the remainder may be metabolized to nitrous oxides that are potent greenhouse gases or leach into soil and surface water as nitrates and nitrites, where they may be toxic (EPA limit for drinking water 10 and 1 ppm, respectively) and where they may result in areas where decay of algae and other microbes create anaerobic zones where plants, fish, and other inhabitants cannot survive. Fertilizers that do not have such adverse environmental impacts are needed.
Fertilizers for lawn uses are being modified due to regulatory concerns about eutrophication of waters. Lawn fertilizers containing phosphorus are banned by some localities for that reason. Nitrate is at least as serious a pollutant as phosphorus, and many locations, such as Long Island for example, would like to limit water pollution from this source. The seriousness of the problem can be illustrated from the following quote regarding Chesapeake Bay (Dewar et al., “Urban Fertilizers and the Chesapeake Bay: An Opportunity for Major Pollution Reduction,” Executive Summary, Environment Maryland, Research and Policy Center (2011)):                For more than 26 years, states in the Chesapeake Bay region have attempted to clean up the Bay, but it continues to choke on a lethal overdose of pollution. In order to achieve a clean, sustainable Bay, states in the Bay watershed will have to reduce nitrogen levels in Bay waters another 30 percent and reduce phosphorus by an additional 8 percent—in spite of a projected population increase of 30 percent by the year 2030. Reductions of that magnitude will only be possible if governments target all the watershed's sources of nutrient pollution.        Excess nitrogen and phosphorus, along with sediment, is a leading cause of recurring poor water quality in the Bay and the waters that feed it. About 30 percent of the Bay's phosphorus load comes from urban and suburban runoff. Those same developed lands account for 10 percent of the nitrogen-tainted runoff. Yet not nearly enough has been done to reduce nutrient runoff from developed lands.        While Maryland regulators are requiring farmers to do better at controlling nutrient-laden runoff from their fields, the state is mostly ignoring the watershed's dominant crop: grass. Throughout the Bay watershed, nearly 3.8 million acres are now planted in turf grass, and the acreage is growing as residential development expands and replaces farm fields. Turf grass is Maryland's biggest crop by far, with as much as 1.3 million acres planted in grass statewide. That compares with 1.5 million acres planted for all other crops in Maryland in 2009. Yet it is the least regulated of the state's major crops.        Turf grass becomes a pollution problem when it is covered with too much fertilizer, which contains nitrogen and phosphorus. The nutrients in fertilizer can help maintain healthy lawns, but in excess they can wash into nearby waters when it rains or snows. Excess fertilizer nutrients can also seep directly into groundwater. Whether the fertilizer is organic or chemical, its nutrients can harm the Bay and local waterways.        Tracking fertilizer use on developed land is such a low priority that the state doesn't keep statistics on it, but Maryland Department of Agriculture records show “nonfarm use” fertilizer sales are quickly catching up to farm fertilizer sales. The best estimates suggest that Maryland landowners apply at least 86 million pounds of nitrogen fertilizer to state lawns every year.        This fertilizer makes its way into rivers and the Bay. In one suburban Baltimore watershed, researchers found 56 percent of the nutrients in a local stream came from lawn fertilizer. Scientists in Texas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut and Canada have also confirmed that pollutants in lawn fertilizer can significantly harm surface water quality.Id. at 1-2.        
Several ordinances on Long Island request “since the health of the children and citizens of [Township], their water, the environment and Long Island Sound will all benefit from the decreased use of chemical fertilizers and lawn pesticides, the Board of Selectmen urges all citizens to voluntarily refrain from the use of chemical fertilizers and lawn pesticides and urges the use of organic lawn care.” Pesticides/Heribicides Model Municipal Ordinances and Regulations, Rivers Alliance of Connecticut. There is a need and potential market for organic lawn fertilizers with low likelihood to pollute water. Regulations such as the above stop short of requiring that only organic fertilizers be used, primarily because there are no non-polluting, organic, and cost-effective products that perform adequately.
Synthetic fertilizers that are primarily used are quite effective in providing quality lawns, but they are damaging to the environment. Unfortunately, as noted supra, organic fertilizers themselves are no panacea. They may also pollute waters since they still require the same amount of nitrogen to provide strong, lush lawns. Typically, current organic fertilizers have serious shortcomings. These include the failure to provide adequate green-up of lawns shortly after application, and they typically contain only 7 to 9% N of any sort. This means, that on a pound-for-pound basis, they cannot provide sufficient N for lush, green lawns unless high rates are used. In addition, to obtain adequate performance, they must be applied at 2-6 times the rate that Scotts® is applied. Thus, a bag of Scotts® fertilizer that weighs about 37 lb will fertilize 15,000 square feet and last for 1-2 months (the company advocates four applications per growing season); equivalent results with a low N organic fertilizer will require about 3 bags to deliver the same amount of N. These factors make traditional organic fertilizers inconvenient to use—customers typically don't want to carry around and spread 100-125 pounds of fertilizer when 30-35 pounds of standard synthetic fertilizers would suffice.
The fact that so much more needs to be applied makes traditional organic fertilizers uneconomical. Even if a 25 pound bag of organic fertilizer is slightly less expensive than inorganic fertilizer, the total price for more than 100 pounds is much higher. Commercial inorganic fertilizer typically retails for about $55 per bag, while the same amount of N in most organic fertilizers will cost more than $100.
The present invention is directed to overcoming these and other deficiencies in the art, and provides an answer to many of the problems of traditional fertilizer while providing several distinct paths to new and unique products that will meet the needs of both users and limit environmental problems.